Killing babies

[MiniMe]

I'm surprised that noone here ever mentioned Spartan's attitude towards ill children.

[QwertyMIDX]

I was just thinking that...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

True, nearly all greeks commited infantacide to deformed children and the Spartans did to any child sub-par. Left them in the wilderness to just die there, IIRC. (Stupid side note: A while ago, when reading the 300 preview thread, I thought up a cool fictional/romanticised greek story based on an abandoned Spartan child.)

[blank]

Stupid side note: A while ago, when reading the 300 preview thread, I thought up a cool fictional/romanticised greek story based on an abandoned Spartan child.

God of War (PS2) had the exact same thing in it...

[Slartibardfast]

Didnt bush just sacrifice rumsfeld?

No he was forced by public opinion to sack a military incompetent nitwit who thinks starting a war is as cut and dry as a corporate takeover and as easy to run as a game of C&C. With his involvement in planning the Vietnam ground war thats two strikes so hopefully he'll never get another job in defence.
Mind you my own Australian Defence Minister was on national TV saying we had a full mechanized infantry brigade to send to Iraq as opposed to not having a brigade of any description and the single mechanized infantry battalion(3RAR) that the RAR actually has, so Rumsfeld isn't alone in the totally incompetent military stakes.

Originally Posted by Glaucus
Errr, do you know what the holocaust was? Nazi's never killed children? Get your facts straight, the Nazis killed a whole lot of children.

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children. German prisoner of war camps in 1944-45 were no pick-nick either especially those for eastern European POW's who got very little in the way of food and supplies. If the US economy in 1944-45 had of been as bad as that of Nazi Germany at that time there would of been a huge death rate increase of civilians of German, Austrian, Check, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian and Japanese heritage in the US concentration camps (detention centres) of WW2 whose death rates were in the order of 10-15% anyway, mostly infant children.

Just thought we should get the facts straight.

Back on topic, did the Carthaginians practice adult cremation?

If so the minimal archeological evidence would probably support the infant cemetery for natural causes of death theory. Rome's propaganda war against Carthage was an absolute so we may never know one way or another.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children. German prisoner of war camps in 1944-45 were no pick-nick either especially those for eastern European POW's who got very little in the way of food and supplies. If the US economy in 1944-45 had of been as bad as that of Nazi Germany at that time there would of been a huge death rate increase of civilians of German, Austrian, Check, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian and Japanese heritage in the US concentration camps (detention centres) of WW2 whose death rates were in the order of 10-15% anyway, mostly infant children.

Just thought we should get the facts straight.

Wow, I didn't realize the holocaust happened because the germans were short on supplies. That should absolve them of any lingering guilt at least I guess.

[GMT]

Wow, I didn't realize the holocaust happened because the germans were short on supplies. That should absolve them of any lingering guilt at least I guess.

Yeah, all living germans are nazis of course

[Zaknafien]

Oh man, those evil Americans, of course..certainly on par with Nazi death camps. Totally the same.

[Thaatu]

If all Germans are nazis, then I guess all Finns are nazis too... OH CRAP!
I hope nazis don't get banned. Merry christmas everyone..?

But anyway, back on topic! What was it anyway..? Oh yeah, killing babies.

[BigTex]

In Roman and Carthaginian law werent infant's under the age of 1 not considered to be "people"? The idea of infantcide probably didn't even cross their minds when child sacrafices occured in the temple's of carthage. Nor would it have been something severly obscene by roman standards.

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children. German prisoner of war camps in 1944-45 were no pick-nick either especially those for eastern European POW's who got very little in the way of food and supplies. If the US economy in 1944-45 had of been as bad as that of Nazi Germany at that time there would of been a huge death rate increase of civilians of German, Austrian, Check, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian and Japanese heritage in the US concentration camps (detention centres) of WW2 whose death rates were in the order of 10-15% anyway, mostly infant children.

The detention centre's were for japanese not the european enemies. As for death rates, there's quite a bit of difference there. Namely violent death was near nill in those detention centre's. But as the name implies the Nazi Death Camp's had a much higher violent death rate. But also when discussing death rates one should note the obscene difference in the total number of deaths...

Have a happy and sunny Mithra's day.

[Tellos Athenaios]

True, nearly all greeks commited infantacide to deformed children and the Spartans did to any child sub-par. Left them in the wilderness to just die there, IIRC.

Not to mention all those other peoples who rid themselves of unwanted offspring...

Back to the Spartans in particular: they had a more sure way to get their unwanted babies killed then just leaving them in the sticks. Instead of waiting for nature to do the trick, their priesthood simply threw the babies into a gorge - one dedicated to some god (Apollo?) and, more importantly, frequented by wild animals such as wolves.

And to round this post off, merry Christmas everyone...

[Shigawire]

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children.
Just thought we should get the facts straight.

I know that the actual number of deaths in Nazi concentration-camps were exaggerated, but even when you take this obvious exaggeration into account, I doubt the veracity of your "facts." From what records did you deduce these facts?

...the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War...

Ah interesting.. I thought the original concentration camps were those set up by the British in the Boer Wars ordered by Lord Herbert Horatio Kitchener, Milner and Roberts. In reality, the idea of a concentration camp has been around since ancient Assyria, so it's wrong to say the Spanish or the US were first. The term concentration camp was first used by the British military during the Boer War (1899-1902). Facing attack by Boer guerrillas, British forces rounded up the Boer women and children as well as black people living on Boer land, and sent them to 34 tented camps scattered around South Africa.

The proper strategy consists in inflicting as telling blows as possible on the enemy's army, and then causing the inhabitants so much suffering that they must long for peace, and force the government to demand it. The people must be left with nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.
(U.S. Army General Philip Sheridan, advice to Otto Von Bismark, 1870)


These camps were originally set up for refugees whose farms had been destroyed by the British "Scorched Earth" policy (the burning down all Boer homesteads and farms to stop the aid of Boers). Then, following Kitchener's new policy, many women and children were forcibly moved to prevent the Boers from re-supplying from their homes and more camps were built and converted to prisons. This relatively new idea was essentially humane in its planning in London but ultimately proved brutal due to its lack of proper implementation. This was not the first appearance of concentration camps. The Spanish used them in the Ten Years' War that later led to the Spanish-American War, and the United States used them to devastate guerrilla forces during the Philippine-American War. But the concentration camp system of the British was on a much larger scale.

27,927 Boer (of whom 22,074 were children under 16) and 14,154 black Africans had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the camps. In all, about 25% of the Boer inmates and 12% of the black African ones died (although recent research suggests that the black African deaths were underestimated and may have actually been around 20,000).




http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm
http://sahistory.org.za/pages/specia...oer-war2ii.htm

This thread has become focused on evil deeds

[Reverend Joe]

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children. German prisoner of war camps in 1944-45 were no pick-nick either especially those for eastern European POW's who got very little in the way of food and supplies. If the US economy in 1944-45 had of been as bad as that of Nazi Germany at that time there would of been a huge death rate increase of civilians of German, Austrian, Check, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian and Japanese heritage in the US concentration camps (detention centres) of WW2 whose death rates were in the order of 10-15% anyway, mostly infant children.

Just thought we should get the facts straight.

Uuuuuh... yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

For the moment, I will grant these numbers, because I don't feel like taking the time to refute them. In that case, what about the death rates of the extermination camps? Or the work camps? Frankly, it's impossible to beat the death rate of a camp designed for the sole purpose for the machine-style pacification, extermination and cremation of entire races of people. To compare it to anything else is, frankly, ignorant.

"...I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames."

[geala]

Hmm, the discussion becomes more and more special...

The worth of human life was valued in many different ways during history. I think history is not over and in 200 years there might be another sight than now. The relativity of human moral can not be overlooked. The times of absolute systems in philosophy are over. That is a pity, but also a fact.

We have slow changing moral systems and we live in a certain system. At the moment we appreciate the life of every human being in the same way and give the same rights to every human. At least in the western world. Even now we have moral systems in the world with a different view. We should be very careful with moral statements. And the ancient view was very different. We have to accept this. Nevertheless I would defend the western system at all costs because I like it. But that is subjective.

So we cannot really blame the Carthaginans, Romans or Greeks for killing some children. But we can judge from the sources that these things happened. I think that is what some of the EB members mean. It has nothing to do with being biased.


Camp concentration debate:
I think we can blame the USA, Great Britain etc. for using concentration camps because the moral system at that time was rather similar than it is today and it was hypocrisy to value human rights and use concentration camps of that kind at the same time. USA first used concentration camps in the 1830s against the southeast Indians before they were forced to the terrible march to the west. Great Britain used it against the Bures who suffered a lot. To be continued. Nothing easy to defend I think. Of course there were also some "good and rational" reasons for doing it.

German concentration camps (KZ) of the Nazis were a different thing in my opinion. I would not like to compare it with that kind of cc used before. Maybe you can compare it to the Gulags of Stalin but even that is very doubtful.

Firstly: numbers does not mean much. Would it be a moral difference, if not 6 million but "only" 3 million people were killed? Or just 100000? I don't think so.
It is an additional thing. The KZ were not only used to concentrate people -accepting the fact that many would die because of the bad living conditions- but to murder them. Some KZ (Treblinka f.e.) were purely designed for the purpose of killing people. And even in the "normal" KZ, for example Dachau or Auschwitz, thousands and thousands of people were murdered only because they belonged to a certain group (being Jews f.e.). So the idea behind the KZ was a rather special one. It was that diabolic ideology what set the German KZ apart from that used by other nations.

[Shigawire]

Firstly: numbers does not mean much. Would it be a moral difference, if not 6 million but "only" 3 million people were killed? Or just 100000? I don't think so.

My sentiments precisely.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

"Kill one man, it's a tragety. Kill a million, it's a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin

(BTW, what's the name of the law about the internet where every conversation if lasting long enough eventually gets to Hitler/Nazis?)

[Kralizec]

Godwins law, I think.

[geala]

Godwins law, I think.

Hähä, good old Mike Godwin. His law is the argument for the divine ability of mankind for differentiated discussions.

To be honest, Nazism was such a stroke to civilisation and humanity that it comes to mind very quickly. I suffer from Godwins law myself sometimes.

[Zaknafien]

Indeed, and who are we to say the killing of children is morally wrong? Our opinions have been skewed by hundreds of years of Judeo/Christian/Muslim morality.

[blacksnail]

It is morally wrong within the very framework you mention, because that is the framework of the societies with the biggest sticks.

[Kralizec]

Indeed, and who are we to say the killing of children is morally wrong?

The people that live today.

Of course people thought differently back then. Just because the Phoenicians did stuff that I consider abhorant doesn't make them less interesting to me, the opposite in fact. Historical characters and nations should be viewed from an amoral perspective, or from their own.

[MiniMe]

And now, something interesting about Getai =)

http://www.idcdeal.com/productdetail.asp?productid=1065

I’ve seen this film yesterday, it is rumored to be historically accurate and based on real events.
Getai king is sacrificing his son to gain victory over invaders. Some weird stuff about his son is to act as a messenger to their deity, blablabla

Somebody, please, find me a EB_faction, who wasn’t sacrificing their relatives! =)

[[cF]HanBaal]

Back on topic, did the Carthaginians practice adult cremation?

If so the minimal archeological evidence would probably support the infant cemetery for natural causes of death theory. Rome's propaganda war against Carthage was an absolute so we may never know one way or another.

Yes, both Phoenicians (as early as the 12th century BC) and Carthaginians (in a larger frequency) used cremation on their dead, both adults and young ones. And children remnants had their own private cemetery.

Been reading more about those excavations made and most of the children urns found belonged to children with LESS than 9 months. So i ask: how can you sacrifice someone who hasnt even born yet? Doesn't this make the theory of either provoked or unprovoked abortions/born dead/young deaths much stronger?

---

Somebody, please, find me a EB_faction, who wasn’t sacrificing their relatives! =)

that's easy. Romans after disasters such as Cannae, 216BC, had the habit of burying alive foreign couples. A greek and a gallic couples were the 'lucky ones'. This is documented. Another one i read about (not sure about the sources) show another foreign couple being buried alive as late as 100BC after a lightning stroke a Vestal Virgins' house. It was interpreted as a disgrace from the Vestal Virgins... lucky for them they were't the ones being buried alive. Not the same can be said when they, Vestal Virgins, broke their vows. Here they would be buried alive with candles and food for 2 days iirc, just to make their final 'holidays' nicer ^^

And of course you have the Colosseums and Amphitheaters 'sacrifices'... unless you consider, as a Christian, being thrown to an arena agaisnt some docile hungry lions with a wooden stick (sometimes no stick) and no armour, a fair 'spectacle' :P

[Tellos Athenaios]

Somebody, please, find me a EB_faction, who wasn’t sacrificing their relatives! =)

Uhm, do you consider sending people into war being a 'sacrifice' as well?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Somebody, please, find me a EB_faction, who wasn’t sacrificing their relatives! =)

What about Parthia, did they kill family? Persian culture seem morally "ahead" of the others, especially those who where Zoroastrian.

[MiniMe]

Uhm, do you consider sending people into war being a 'sacrifice' as well?

Only if these people are King's Leonid Spartans

[GodEmperorLeto]

People on this thread need to stop grinding their frelling axes and start talking about baby-killing Carthies!

[Namenlos]

Some annotations:

a) As a nice illustration, why we should be careful to take (only?) ancient sources at face value, I would like to quote one of my all-time-favorites books – Finkelstein / Silberman: The Bible Unearthed – Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, New York et al. 2002, p. 39 f.

“The relationships of Israel and Judah with their eastern neighbors are also clearly reflected in the patriarchal narratives. Through the eighth and seventh centuries BCE their contacts with the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab had often been hostile; Israel, in fact, dominated Moab in the early ninth Century BCE. It is therefore highly significant – and amusing – how the neighbors to the east are disparaged in the patriarchal genealogies. Genesis 19:30-38 … informs us that those nations were born from an incestuous union. After God overthrew the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his two daughters sought shelter in a cave in the hills. The daughters, unable to find proper husbands in their isolated situation – and desperate to have children – served wine to their father until he became drunk. They then lay with him and eventually gave birth to two sons: Moab and Ammon. No seventh century Judahite looking across the Dead Sea toward the rival kingdoms would have been able to suppress a smile of contempt at a story of such a disreputable ancestry.”

b) In regards to the population of Carthage:

"Un seul auteur ancien donne une indication sur le nombre d'habitants de Carthage. Il s'sagit de Strabon... Mais le chiffre qu'il avance, 700.000 âmes au début de la troisième guerre punique, paraît élevé pour les specialistes qui font remarquer que d'autres auteurs laissent entendre que la population carthaginoise était beaucoup plus modeste." [Hédi Dridi: Carthage et le monde punique, 2006, p. 68] => Somewhere I found a recent estimation assuming the number of 100.000 inhabitants as most likely.

c) I think, the same author [p. 192 f.] gives a nice overview what the current status of the discussion concerning the Moloch-Topic looks like:

"Il paraît donc difficile d'affirmer, sur la foi des données objectives dont nous disposons, que l'un de ces sacrifices concernait des victimes humaines. Qu'il ait eu des sacrifices humains à un moment donné de l'histoire phénicienne et punique, cela paraît indéniable - les Grecs et les Romains les ont également pratiqués -, mais accepter le caractère permanent, systématique et massif que lui ont donné les auteurs classiques reviendrait à donner plus de credit aux sources externes qu'aux donnés matérielles de l'archélogie punique."

d) Based on c) I see no significant reason, why this aspect should be given a high priority when it comes to the question of how to model the Punic society in the EB environment.

Regards - PTB

[Fondor_Yards]

And now, something interesting about Getai =)

http://www.idcdeal.com/productdetail.asp?productid=1065

I’ve seen this film yesterday, it is rumored to be historically accurate and based on real events.
Getai king is sacrificing his son to gain victory over invaders. Some weird stuff about his son is to act as a messenger to their deity, blablabla

Somebody, please, find me a EB_faction, who wasn’t sacrificing their relatives! =)

Yea one of the getai traits has to deal with the person being offered to the gods as a messenger/sacrifice and being rejected. Here's the text and stuff about it.

Returned By Zalmoxis

This man was offered in his youth the honor of delivering his people's message to Zalmoxis, but the god rejected him and his impalement failed. Even though his family's position prevented his definitive banishment from society, he is the last man to be trusted in his community.

-6 Influence, -3 to the morale of all troops on the battlefield *ouch that hurts*

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I found this website, I don't know what it is, I didn't really look at all of it. (I think it is a tourism thing for Tunisia.) But it has some pictures of the baby cemetary in Carthage: http://i-cias.com/tunisia/carthage02.htm